Battle Map Size

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Battle Map Size

This topic contains 15 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  iHunterKiller 9 years ago.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3612

    virkhus
    Member

    I played Aow for hundred of hours, I played AOW2 for a handful (in short, AOW2 was a waste of money). Larger battle maps fosters strategy, formations, tactics. Smaller maps may as well be Ogre Battle.

    Please, at least give us the –option– of having much larger battle maps. Slugfests are not strategy.

    Please give up AOW battle map sizes instead of AOW2.

    Thank you

    #3624

    Tomipapa
    Member

    Although in general i love AoW 1 more than AoW 2, one of the most annoying thing in AoW 1 was the large battlefield. Spending 5 turn just to get in contact with the enemy wasnt that fun. Especially when someone attacked you from all sides with max stacks.Waiting 5-6 min just to start the real battle is no fun for me

    #3643

    cyz
    Member

    I agree with you both. The battle should be big enough to allow for some retreating and flanking movement. At the same time, I do not want to be waiting minutes for two armies to reach each other (this isn’t fair too, because you will be able to cast several spells before the fighting has actually started).

    Basiclly the distance between the starting positions should be the movement range of the fastest unit with haste +1 tile. That being said, to create more room there should be some room behind the starting positions (armies should not start too close to the edge of the screen).

    #3645

    Brother JO
    Member

    Devs said that they were still playing with battlemap sizes, so I would not expect that what we saw in GDC video will be what we will see at the release.

    But I agree with you guys ; no units should be able to reach enemy ranks at the first turn,but it should not take 2 turns before armies clash too.

    #3647

    I’m good with aow2 and shadow magic maps, but not with the tiny ones they’re trying. I really agree with you hoping for no first turn melee/short range attacks (while i’m fine with being hit by bow/crossbow/darts/wathever long-range from first turn)

    #3654

    bam65
    Member

    Not too large and not too small…check!

    #3661

    Jayaris
    Member

    It took the regular units an extra turn to reach each other.

    Presumably the dragon has a fairly high amount of Movement Points. Which I don’t particularly have a problem is, my issue is that the Dragon Breath ability was able to be used when the Dragon was in the yellow/red in terms of AP.

    #3731

    Dhante
    Member

    I will put AoW III in a pile with all the empire building games with small tactical map portions thrown in as side note.

    Been there done that a million times

    Those  strategic games with basic Tactical maps with confined 1 or 2 turn maneuvers is part of a severely overdone formula. Those Kingdom Strategy Games with little brawls for the combat has many examples all done very well in many peoples opinions.

    I’m sure many of the AoW lovers don’t mind another HoMM, Fallen Enchantress, Kings Bounty, blah blah etc etc…

    I always thought of AoW/+ as decent Tactical Battle games with strategic movement/prep in between battles.

    With lots of unit modding it had an awesome tactical game.

    I pray that this time there will be much more tactical challenge with lot’s of depth.

    Please, at least, Allow for parameters/options to make the Tactical battles much much more in depth and prominent.

    Guess that would be a range from:

    ##) Grand Strategic Game with an on the fly Tactical Battle Option all the way to…

    ##) Complicated or Challenging Tactical Battles with a bit of a Strategy Phase  to connect them together.

    The replay value in between those extremes could be phenomenal.

    This way the Strategy lovers can be happy and you will get all the Panzer General, UFO, Jagged Alliance, etc, etc… people very excited too.

    Sorry for my rambling, not good at quick… just like my tactical gaming lol.

    #3743

    Narvek
    Keymaster

    We hear you. As Brother JO said, we’re still looking at this.

    #3746

    Zhukodim
    Member

    We hear you. As Brother JO said, we’re still looking at this

     

    Very glad to hear it.

    #3749

    Fikol
    Member

    glad as well!

    #3845

    virkhus
    Member

    I appreciate that you are at least considering this. I have no idea how you are making the maps, however, one suggestion. Since few people seem to agree on the exact size, make a map of AOW1 size and then cut it down to AOW 2 size. Then provide an option of varying battlefield sizes (maybe 100% AOW1, 75%, 50% and 25%)  at start of a scenario/campaign. This would, hopefully, appeal to everyone in one fashion or another.

    If something like this is a reasonable step based upon your development kit, please do so.

    Thank you,

    Virkhus

     

    #3846

    Sordak
    Member

    why not different battle map sizes on different terrain?
    Lets say we speak about a very cluttered enviroment, like a jungle for example.

    Its save to assume that an engagement would be at a very small patch of land since the armies wouldnt see each other untill they are very close.

    While in a wide open plain, there would be alot more distance at the start of a battle.

    This could open some tactical options like trying to lure cavalery or archer stacks into a forested area where they easily fall prey to melee units.
    Outmaneuvering is fun!

    #3848

    NEHZ
    Member

    While not as intuitive to new players, having starting tactical distance depend strategic map factors could add a lot of depth.
    I’d like to add to Sordak’s suggestion: when fighting on an open plane, have the starting distance depend on the fastest unit: if neither side has fast or long ranged units, the armies can approach closer to each other before the battle begins, resulting in closer starting positions. Mostly as a time saver.

    #3852

    Sordak
    Member

    hah, i have not thought of this. Id agree BUT thers something id like to throw in there: Have it take influence borders into account.

    lets say both sides have only melee units. But what if one of the participating players can cast spells because its inside his domain?
    in that case the “time saving” of making the battlefield smaller could be a disadvantage to him especialy when we are talking about spells like chain lightning (that totaly killed 2 of my own knights yesterday)

    #4807

    The easiest way i can see this working is by using the deployment zone, many other games use it very well. At the start you have the deployment zone which encompasses multiple tiles.

    This would work very well if both sides had multiple zones say 1 each for left, middle and right, each with slightly varied terrain.

    Each zone would be saay 4-8 tiles long, meaning you can spawn at the back and give yourself that extra space to size up the enemy, or spawn at the front for a quick rush.

    Would also play to your classes strength. Magic classes would more often spawn at the back to get the most out of the very powerful tactical spells and warlords would start at the front pushing their mofos straight into your lines.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.